Elting v. Hickman

• Decision Date: 24 February 1903
• Citation: 172 Mo. 237,72 S.W. 700
• Parties: ELTING et al. v. HICKMAN et al., Judges.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

72 S.W. 700

172 Mo. 237

ELTING et al. v. HICKMAN et al., Judges.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

February 24, 1903.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — STATUTES — SPECIAL LEGISLATION — TAXATION — UNIFORMITY — COUNTIES — ROAD DISTRICTS — CITIES — DIVISION INTO CLASSES.

1. Const. art. 4, § 28, declares that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be expressed in the title. Act March 9, 1895 (Sess. Acts 1895, p. 253), entitled "An act to provide for working and improving public roads for the organization of special road districts and to raise revenue therefor," in sections 16 and 17 appropriates for the repair and construction of roads certain portions of taxes raised by virtue of other statutes. Held, that the statute is not violative of the Constitution on the theory that it does not indicate in the title that it appropriates or uses revenues raised by other laws.

2. Const. art. 4, § 46, prohibits the Legislature from granting or authorizing the making of any grant of public money or thing of value to any individual, association, or corporation. Act approved March 9, 1895, providing for the organization of special road districts, and providing that a certain portion of certain taxes raised under other statutes in cities and counties within such district shall be appropriated to road district purposes, is not violative of the constitutional provision.

3. The statute is not violative of Const. art. 4, § 47, declaring that the Legislature shall have no power to authorize any county, city, town, or township, or subdivision of the state to lend its credit or grant public money in aid of any individual, association, or corporation.

4. Const. art. 9, § 7, declares that the Legislature shall provide for the classification of cities and towns, and that each city of the same class shall possess the same powers, etc., and that it shall make provisions whereby any municipality existing under special law may become subject to the general law. Rev. St. 1899, §§ 5252-5255, divide cities into four classes. Section 5254 provides that cities of a certain population may elect to become cities of the third class, and those of a certain population may elect to become cities of the fourth class, the procedure to such election being pointed out by section 5257. Act approved March 9, 1895, providing for the organization of special road districts, etc., provides that they may consist of territory wherein there is a city of the third or fourth class, except cities of the third class under special charter. Held that, inasmuch as cities under special charters do not belong to any of the classes provided for by the Constitution unless they have elected so to do, the statute is not violative of Const. art. 9. § 7, on the theory that it divides cities of the third class into two classes, and is hence special legislation.

5. Act approved March 9, 1895, providing for the organization of special road districts, etc., and appropriating revenue for the use of roads within the same, is not violative of Const. art. 10, § 3, providing that taxes shall be levied for public purposes only.

6. Const. art. 10, § 3, declares that taxes shall be uniform. Act approved March 9, 1895, providing for the establishment of special road districts, in section 17 provides for levying taxes for road purposes of not less than 10 cents on $100, and section 18 provides for a special poll tax of $2.50 on inhabitants of the road district between 21 and 60 years of age. In that part of a county not embraced in such a road district the age is between 21 and 50, and the assessment not less than $2 nor more than $4. Held, that the statute does not violate the Constitution, inasmuch as it is uniform upon the same class within the same territorial limits of the authority levying the tax.

7. Const. art. 10, § 10, declares that the General Assembly shall not impose taxes on cities or other municipal corporations for municipal purposes, but may, by general laws, vest in the corporate authorities thereof the power to assess and collect taxes for such purposes. Act March 9, 1895, providing for the establishment of special road districts, which may embrace cities within their territorial limits, authorizes appropriation of certain funds raised by taxation in the cities for the maintenance and repair of the roads of the districts (Rev. St. 1889, §§ 4575, 7663, par. 2); and section 7922, Rev. St. 1889, authorizes taxation derived from cities for the keeping up of roads entering the cities. Held, that the act of March 9th was not violative of Const. art. 10, in that it attempted to appropriate money collected by city authorities for purposes outside of the city.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; Jos. D. Perkins, Judge.

Suit by Alonzo Elting and others against J. M. Hickman and others, as judges of the county court of Jasper county, to restrain them from drawing certain warrants. From a decree for defendants, complainants appeal. Affirmed.

This is an action by plaintiffs, taxpaying citizens of the county of Jasper, against the defendants, judges of the county court of said county, to restrain and enjoin them as such court from drawing warrants on the county treasurer of said county in favor of certain specified road districts organized in said county under the provision of an act of the General Assembly of the state of Missouri entitled "An act to provide for working and improving the public roads, by the organization of special road districts of territory not more than six miles square, in which is located a city of the third or fourth class, except cities of the third class organized under special charter, and to raise revenue therefor, and to further provide that when this act shall become a law it shall take effect and be in force only in such prescribed territory wherein the county courts shall by order of record, declare the same to be the law in such prescribed territory where adopted by the legal voters thereof, with an emergency clause," approved March 9, 1895 (Sess. Acts 1895, p. 253).

The petition, leaving off the formal parts, is as follows:

"Plaintiffs state that the plaintiff Alonzo Elting is a resident taxpaying citizen of Madison townshop, Jasper county, Mo.; that plaintiff Charles D. James is a resident taxpaying citizen of Marion township, Jasper county, Mo.; and that plaintiff H. D. Hoover is a resident taxpaying citizen of Preston township, Jasper county, Mo.; and that plaintiff I. S. Thompson is a resident taxpaying citizen of Sheriden township, Jasper county, Mo.; and that plaintiff Daniel Bickell is a resident taxpaying citizen of Lincoln township, Jasper county, Mo.; and that plaintiff George W. Duncan is a resident taxpaying citizen of McDonald township, Jasper county, Mo.; and that plaintiff W. E. Bridges is a resident taxpaying citizen of Sarcoxie township, Jasper county, Mo.; and that plaintiff W. H. Rogers is a resident taxpaying citizen of Union township, Jasper county, Mo.; and that plaintiff Hiram Smith is a resident taxpaying citizen of Jackson township, Jasper county, Mo.; and that plaintiff J. C. Harvey is a resident taxpaying citizen of Galena township, Jasper county, Mo.; and that plaintiff J. H. McBee is a resident taxpaying citizen of Twin Grove township, Jasper county, Mo.; and that plaintiff Edward S. Billingslea is a resident taxpaying citizen of Jasper county, Mo.; and that plaintiff George Sawyer is a resident taxpaying citizen of Duval township, Jasper county, Mo. Plaintiffs further say that the defendant J. M. Hickman is the duly elected, qualified, and acting presiding judge of the county court of Jasper county, Mo.; that the defendant W. R. Schooler is the duly elected, qualified, and acting associate judge of the county court of Jasper county, Mo., for the Eastern District of said county; that the defendant M. C. Terry is the duly elected, qualified, and acting associate judge of the county court of Jasper county, Mo., for the Western District of said county; that the said three defendants compose and are the county court of Jasper county, Mo. Plaintiffs further state that the city of Carterville is a city of the fourth class, situated in Joplin township, Jasper county, Mo.; that the city of Webb City is a city of the third class, situated in Joplin township, Jasper county, Mo.; that the city of Joplin is a city of the third class, situated in Galena township, Jasper county, Mo.

"Plaintiffs further say: That by virtue of an act of the General Assembly of the state of Missouri approved March 9, 1895, entitled `An act to provide for working and improving public roads, by the organization of special road districts of territory of not more than six miles square, in which is located a city of the third or fourth class, except cities of the third class organized under a special charter, and to raise revenue therefor, and to further provide that when this act shall become a law it shall take effect and be in force only in such prescribed territory wherein the county court shall, by order of record, declare the same to be the law in such prescribed territory where adopted by the legal voters thereof, with an emergency clause.' That the city of Carterville, by proceedings duly had under said act on April 10, 1896, duly organized a special road district not more than six miles square, which included the said city of Carterville, under the name and style of `Carterville Special Road District'; that a board of commissioners for said road district were duly and legally appointed in accordance with the provisions of law, and said road district is still in existence, and its board of commissioners in active operation; that one W. B. Kane is the treasurer of the board of commissioners of said Carterville special road district. That the city of Joplin, by proceeding duly had under said act on May 14, 1896, duly organized a special road district not more than six miles square, which included the said city of Joplin...